About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
in powering afghan communities to defend against taliban intimidation and violence. plans are being developed to increase the authorized size of the alp program from 30,000 to 45,000. the next centcom commander will also play an important role in shaping our enduring partnership with afghanistan after 2014. the partnership that i fully support. ike m. concerned however by the plants to reduce the afghan national security forces by a third starting in 2015. 352,000 to 230,000 by 2017. i believe that any future reductions in the size of the afghan forces should be based on security conditions in afghanistan at that time and this afghan security forces make and providing for their country security, we should reassure them that we will continue to support these efforts by deciding that as we withdraw our forces that there won't get drawdown and afghan forces. progress in afghanistan remains fragile and significant challenges to afghanistan's long-term stability remain. among the greatest threat to its stability are the safe havens for afghan insurgents across the pakistan border. the government o
qaeda, the taliban, and its associated forces. second, in this conflict, as indeed in any conflict, the united states is lawfully entitled. and finally, whatever the constitution's due process guarantees may require before targeting a u.s. citizen, these requirements are more than satisfied by rigorous judgment that a person needs the administration's narrow targeting. to understand why this position must be correct, consider a domestic hostage situation. in such a situation, even law enforcement will use this command it will do so without judicial preapproval when the threats of the lives of the hostages is serious. nobody takes the position that such actions constitute and killings. it is not profoundly different from this hostage situation. a mounting chorus of critics has insisted that judicial review must be a feature of the framework that authorizes the targeting of american nationals. whatever the merit of these mechanisms, one point is very clear. current law simply does not provide for prospective judicial involvement in targeting decisions. it is therefore hard for having
. we went because it met our goal to give it about qaeda. we have been in the taliban government and set the country sorted into free play, we develop some kind of moral responsibility for helping them get it right. third, geostrategic plates in america in the world's interest to have a stable region. if afghanistan were unstable, acting pakistan's stability would be very tenuous and it challenges anyway, but i think it's important. my view is that we need to do is be persistent and consistent in the region. the reason people are so nervous is because in 2004 the inc. were going to leave and they seemed asleep before. in 1989 returned from the region. it doesn't matter whether each afghan style that appeared its become a commonly accepted truth that we left in 1989 and they're starting to think we're going to walk in 2014 and there will be nobody they can rely on. they'll have other strategic allies. so what they looking for is the idea of a long-term strategic partnership. i don't think that the specific number of troops. i think it's the idea you got an ally somewhere in their
it said local taliban was working with warlords to provide guards and weapons for the use of the contract. it came out that they were failing to adequately investigate the previous employment which resulted in the company's hiring individuals who previously had been fired for sharing sensitive information. security information with the taliban war lords and failure to appropriately some of according to the u.s. intelligence reports may have been involved in anti-american activity. all of that information was out in a classified we several weeks before it to attend comes out of 28 and was out in public of september 28th. guess who the state department gave the contract to for guarding them on the 29th. the eodt and then the were fired for never performing because they couldn't perform accurately. they wanted to litigate. meanwhile guess who is still guarding. we had egis guarding which was another contract of kabul. we still have armored troops then we did a contract with the jet. they finally took over the summer. i urge you all to take a look and you do not have to come secretary, you ca
, the taliban and associated forces in response to the 9/11 attacks. and we may also use force consistent with our inherit right of national self-defense. there is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely piloted aircraft for the purpose or that prohibits us from usinglet l force against our enemies outside of an active battle field. at least when the country involved can sense or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat. second, targeted strikes are ethical. without question, the ability to target a specific individual from hundreds or thousands of miles away raises profound questions. here i think it is useful to consider such strikes against the basic principles of the law of war that governor the use of force. targeted strikes conform to the principle of necessity. the requirement that the target have definite military value. in this armed conflict, individuals who are part of al qaeda or associated forces are legislated mate, military targets. we have the authority to target them with lethal force, just as we target enemy leaders in past conflicts. s
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)